Purdue donation incites First Amendment fight over ‘God’ plaque

A proposed donor plaque inside the new site of Herrick Laboratories at Purdue University is a bone of contention for a Purdue University alumnus and donor. Michael McCracken says his First Amendment rights have been violated through Purdue’s refusal to reference the word “God” in a memorial plaque in the building.
(Photo:
Hayleigh Colombo/Journal & Courier
)

A Purdue University alumnus alleges his First Amendment rights were violated by his alma mater over a donation to the college.

When Michael McCracken and his wife made a $12,500 donation to Purdue’s School of Mechanical Engineering in 2012, Purdue asked the engineering graduate to provide an inscription for a conference room dedication plaque, which would be installed in the recently renovated Herrick Laboratories.

But the words McCracken chose, in honor of his parents, turned out to be controversial.

“To those who seek to better the world through the understanding of God’s physical laws and innovation of practical solutions. In honor of Dr. William ‘Ed’ and Glenda McCracken.”

Purdue rejected the dedication because of its use of the word “God,” which officials said would be a government endorsement of religion. Purdue is a public institution and receives money from state and federal entities.

McCracken, his lawyer and The Liberty Institute, a national group backing him, said the plaque is private speech and that Purdue’s ban violates his First Amendment rights under the establishment clause.

“Purdue asked Dr. McCracken to supply language of his choice in recognition of his and his wife’s generous pledge to their alma mater. He chose language that honors the values instilled by his parents — Ed, also a Purdue alumnus, and Glenda, who recently passed away.”

“This does not reflect anything the Supreme Court has ever said regarding the Establishment Clause. The word ‘God’ is on the dollar bill.”

The gift was a multiyear gift that would give Purdue $2,500 for the next five years. Kelner said McCracken was informed in October that the language would be rejected.

Steve Schultz, Purdue’s legal counsel, released the following statement on behalf of the West Lafayette university on Thursday:

“We have a great deal of understanding and sympathy for the disappointment of the McCracken family. If we had confidence that the courts would find this private speech as the donor’s counsel argues, then we would agree immediately — and strongly.

“But given the facts here, our status as a public institution, and the hopelessly muddled state of jurisprudence in this particular area, we could fully expect lengthy and expensive litigation that would wipe out the value of this donation many times over, and we just don’t think that’s advisable for either the donor or the university. Still, we remain open to continued discussions, as we’d much prefer to be in the mode of expressing gratitude, not disagreement, to our donors.”

Kelner said McCracken was “very disappointed” by the statement.

“The university is essentially giving voices that would ban even private references to ‘God’ a heckler’s veto here,” Kelner said. “In so many words, the statement suggests that Dr. McCracken’s pledge was not large enough to justify the hassle of defending his speech in court. But, of course, it is precisely the university’s decision to violate Dr. McCracken’s First Amendment rights that would lead to potentially lengthy and expensive litigation.”

McCracken and his lawyer apparently have proposed alternative language for the plaque that Kelner said makes clear that the speech is private and not coming from Purdue.

“We have offered to the university to make whatever changes they want us to make to make it blindingly clear to any reader that this is speech by the McCrackens and not the university,” Kelner told the Journal & Courier. “To this moment, the university has not been willing to come back and suggest alternative language.”

McCracken’s lawyer said his client has given him the go-ahead to enter into litigation should the situation not be cleared up through negotiation.